Compassion First Home Care

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Leaders and staff contributed to a culture focused on providing good care to people.

The registered manager told us the ethos of the service was, “We focus on customer service. We call them customers as they are paying us for a service, hence why it’s our priority. It is for them to tell us what daily life is like for them and how we can fit in with them.” In addition to this, the registered manager said, “We focus on local homecare, recruit local staff to care for local people. We feel it impacts on the connections with those we support and we integrate into the community.”

People praised the service provided and those who provided it. It was clear people, relatives and staff worked well together and understood each other. People were complimentary of the management team. Staff were complimentary about the agency and culture at the service. Staff said they got on well, communicated effectively and all wanted to do their best for those they cared for. One staff member told us they enjoyed working for the agency because, “The office staff are a real support, and the management is lovely.”

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

It was clear from people’s and relatives’ comments, senior staff were approachable, considerate and supportive when people and relatives contacted the office. People’s feedback told us senior staff, and the registered manager occasionally supported them at their calls which showed they cared and wanted to know how things were progressing. This showed an inclusive approach to managing the service.

A positive culture was set by the registered manager. They told us the vision of their agency and how they had grown the business at a pace that continued to put people first. The registered manager also said they had reviewed their pay structure and wanted to pay care staff rates they were proud of.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff we spoke with were confident to raise any concerns and they knew who to speak to. A typical comment was they could approach the registered manager who had a ‘open door’ policy. Staff told us communication was good and they felt supported by office staff, whether delivering care in people’s homes or if they needed advice. No staff we spoke with had needed to raise concerns but if they did, they felt confident their concerns would be addressed.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager told us they and senior staff worked on care calls, so it kept them in touch with what was being delivered. A senior staff member said they enjoyed undertaking care calls because they saw what it was like from care staff’s perspective. They also said because they worked and travelled between care calls, they could tell if care rotas and managing calls on a geographical basis continued to work well. If changes were needed, these were made.

Some staff said they could change their shift patterns to work around their personal circumstances. Staff felt confident to ask for changes. One senior staff member said if a staff member was had physical limitations or if they were expecting, care calls would be changed so staff were not put at any potential harm.

The provider did not always have clear systems of accountability or good governance. Aspects of risk and outcome management did not always act on the best information.

The provider had a system of quality assurance that included oversight by the provider and management team. This included checks of medicines administration, care records, staff recruitment processes and spot checks of staff practice. Daily checks of planned care calls ensured punctuality of care calls, late arrivals and continuity was known. Any actions taken to inform and improve could be made without delay.

Checks and audits were generated through the provider’s electronic system, but these were more of a tick box than explaining and recording what was being checked and what was found. For example, a medicine audit asked is there a body map and recorded ‘yes’ but there was no information for who and was it being completed correctly. We found body maps (form the provider used to record application ofcreams) were not being completed for the application of prescribed creams which meant the checks were not accurate. We discussed this with the registered manager who said they had recently appointed an operations director to add more structure and processes to their quality assurance. Some quality assurance improvements were underway, such as reviewing historical accident and incidents for any patterns or trends. We spent time with the operations director who assured us their systems would be strengthened to better evidence what was checked, and the effectiveness of improvements were monitored. Following our visit, the registered manager had actions underway to improve checks.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Processes for working with and alongside other health and social care professionals were considered. Where additional support was provided, staff documented the support they needed to do to show people’s overall health and wellbeing was maintained in line with guidance and advice. Staff recognised the importance of family members and involved families when required to keep them updated. Those important relationships and connections continued to be maintained. Relatives told us staff were good at keeping them informed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The registered manager was prepared for the inspection and had researched changes within the inspection framework to ensure they were providing the best care they could to the right standards. The registered manager welcomed the inspection and through this process, the registered manager was considering what they did now and where some improvements were needed. The registered manager was receptive to any suggestions we discussed. Following our visit, the registered manager said they had immediately addressed those improvements we highlighted and they were building upon those to continually improve.

Learning was a strong focus. Recent addition of an operations director would strengthen and learn from improve systems and checks. There were evidence of regular spot checks of staff practice, supervision and checks of staff competency. This helped make sure staff applied their knowledge and skills consistently, as well as following any training updates to their practice. Staff felt able to provide the quality of care they wanted, and they told us they wanted to make a difference to people’s lives.